I'm sorry, Jim, I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I'm going to stop other things. I like PBS, I love Big Bird. Actually like you, too. But I'm not going to -- I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for. That's number one.

Basically, he said that he like Big Bird but he was going to have to cut PBS funding. Which is where the jobless Big Bird meme comes from, and why so much energy on the internet is on the Big Bird thing and not on candidate performance at the debate.

Better yet to make the campaign about lying in the campaign. Maneuver the narrative to the point where it's automatically understood that Romney will say something untruthful, and then make the game to cause the listeners to weigh each assertion for truth and then give a score at the end of the speech or address or debate or whatever.

That would require comprehension of the untruth. Have you not read a single comment on a "Fox News" article ever? There's no comprehension there, just mouth-frothing stupidity.

Not to go all "47% those people don't matter" on you, but those people don't matter, at least in terms of voting for Obama. If you're posting mouth-frothing stupidity on a Fox News article you're never, ever, never fucking ever voting for anyone who doesn't have an R next to his/her name on the ballot. There's zero reason to factor them into any strategy at all.

Better yet to make the campaign about lying in the campaign. Maneuver the narrative to the point where it's automatically understood that Romney will say something untruthful, and then make the game to cause the listeners to weigh each assertion for truth and then give a score at the end of the speech or address or debate or whatever.

That would require comprehension of the untruth. Have you not read a single comment on a "Fox News" article ever? There's no comprehension there, just mouth-frothing stupidity.

Not to go all "47% those people don't matter" on you, but those people don't matter, at least in terms of voting for Obama. If you're posting mouth-frothing stupidity on a Fox News article you're never, ever, never fucking ever voting for anyone who doesn't have an R next to his/her name on the ballot. There's zero reason to factor them into any strategy at all.

Better yet to make the campaign about lying in the campaign. Maneuver the narrative to the point where it's automatically understood that Romney will say something untruthful, and then make the game to cause the listeners to weigh each assertion for truth and then give a score at the end of the speech or address or debate or whatever.

That would require comprehension of the untruth. Have you not read a single comment on a "Fox News" article ever? There's no comprehension there, just mouth-frothing stupidity.

Not to go all "47% those people don't matter" on you, but those people don't matter, at least in terms of voting for Obama. If you're posting mouth-frothing stupidity on a Fox News article you're never, ever, never fucking ever voting for anyone who doesn't have an R next to his/her name on the ballot. There's zero reason to factor them into any strategy at all.

Unfortunately a valid point.

By the same token I don't matter either. There's almost no chance as things stand now I'll vote Republican in any race. The same is true of most liberals I know, though to be fair I'd classify most, myself included, more as anything-with-a-chance to-win-who-isn't-a-Republican voters than I would pro-Democrat voters. We shouldn't factor into any debate strategy, either.

I'm sorry, Jim, I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I'm going to stop other things. I like PBS, I love Big Bird. Actually like you, too. But I'm not going to -- I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for. That's number one.

Basically, he said that he like Big Bird but he was going to have to cut PBS funding. Which is where the jobless Big Bird meme comes from, and why so much energy on the internet is on the Big Bird thing and not on candidate performance at the debate.

While Mitt won on style and performance, and Obama's performance was anything but inspiring, Romney opened himself to a lot of criticism with his comments. You can win the Super Bowl and still have played a shitty, shady game.

I'm sorry, Jim, I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I'm going to stop other things. I like PBS, I love Big Bird. Actually like you, too. But I'm not going to -- I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for. That's number one.

Basically, he said that he like Big Bird but he was going to have to cut PBS funding. Which is where the jobless Big Bird meme comes from, and why so much energy on the internet is on the Big Bird thing and not on candidate performance at the debate.

While Mitt won on style and performance, and Obama's performance was anything but inspiring, Romney opened himself to a lot of criticism with his comments. You can win the Super Bowl and still have played a shitty, shady game.

Lying out of your teeth repeatedly isn't style. He won strictly on performance.

I'm sorry, Jim, I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I'm going to stop other things. I like PBS, I love Big Bird. Actually like you, too. But I'm not going to -- I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for. That's number one.

Basically, he said that he like Big Bird but he was going to have to cut PBS funding. Which is where the jobless Big Bird meme comes from, and why so much energy on the internet is on the Big Bird thing and not on candidate performance at the debate.

While Mitt won on style and performance, and Obama's performance was anything but inspiring, Romney opened himself to a lot of criticism with his comments. You can win the Super Bowl and still have played a shitty, shady game.

Lying out of your teeth repeatedly isn't style. He won strictly on performance.

Yep. He was right on top of his Arizona oceanfront pitch. Lots of people thought it was great, I'm sure, but later on it comes to them- "Arizona oceanfront? What???"

Some even let him put the pen in their hand, but the closing is still a month away...

Isn't China reducing its holdings of US debt? It certainly was, I didn't think the policy had been reversed.

I seem to recall that it was merely diversifying what it was buying, not so much actively reducing any existing holdings. I also seem to recall when that was announced that they were investing in more bonds from Eurozone countries, which given the circumstances I wouldn't be surprised if they've stepped back from that a bit.

Isn't China reducing its holdings of US debt? It certainly was, I didn't think the policy had been reversed. So how can Mitt be borrowing from China to pay for anything?

Mitt's peers are swallowing as much Treasury debt as they can get, bidding down yields to the point where they're basically paying for secure parking. Demand is very high. China's holdings have been reduced slightly over the last year-

Better yet to make the campaign about lying in the campaign. Maneuver the narrative to the point where it's automatically understood that Romney will say something untruthful, and then make the game to cause the listeners to weigh each assertion for truth and then give a score at the end of the speech or address or debate or whatever.

That would require comprehension of the untruth. Have you not read a single comment on a "Fox News" article ever? There's no comprehension there, just mouth-frothing stupidity.

Not thinking of Fox, actually, but of the lamestream media. Those guys can't not report on the meme-o-the-day, and so if the Admin can manipulate them to start talking about looking for truths and falsehoods in the Romney narrative, then THAT becomes the story. The idea being to think of Romney as a teller of tales rather than to take what he says on face value.

Well here is the thing, the Unemployment Numbers are rigged... but they've been rigged for decades and as such provide a good baseline even if they don't provide an accurate number.

I've always kind of loved unemployment numbers because they're so easily abused. Seasonally adjusted, based on participation, varying interpretations on what full time, part time, underemployed, etc all means, you can pretty much pull whatever number straight out of your ass and use it. The consistent number used is very useful, but it's very easy to ignore it too.

Reality is, the number doesn't matter at all. But there's a whole lot of people out there who are unemployed, or know a lot of people who are unemployed, or feel like there's a lack of jobs. If they have numbers to back up how they feel, they'll feel more strongly about it. If they feel a whole lot of people are wrongly out of work, the number going down won't mean much. And they might be able to add Romney's "it's really 11%" to that feeling to back it up, so they might feel the President is misleading them and going to vote for Romney. It's all about convincing and swaying people by little margins.

I've always kind of loved unemployment numbers because they're so easily abused. Seasonally adjusted, based on participation, varying interpretations on what full time, part time, underemployed, etc all means, you can pretty much pull whatever number straight out of your ass and use it.

Reality is, the number doesn't matter at all.

You may wish to listen to this NPR episode on the unemployment numbers. They're nowhere near as arbitrary and unimportant as you claim.

I've always kind of loved unemployment numbers because they're so easily abused. Seasonally adjusted, based on participation, varying interpretations on what full time, part time, underemployed, etc all means, you can pretty much pull whatever number straight out of your ass and use it.

Reality is, the number doesn't matter at all.

You may wish to listen to this NPR episode on the unemployment numbers. They're nowhere near as arbitrary and unimportant as you claim.

Sorry, I probably wasn't clear (and was more referring to the recent claim of unemployment really being around 11%, or 500%, or whatever you want to use). The BLS produces a very useful set of statistics, but the actual unemployment rate isn't that useful. What is useful is the change in unemployment, jobs created, where they were created, etc. But the way it has been used politically; like how the Romney campaign has run how the unemployment rate was over 8% for 42 months, and is now inventing reasons why it's higher than 8%, the fact people talk about 8% anyway, is completely meaningless.

FWIW, I think the U6 unemployment numbers are a lot closer to representing the true state of the labor market and the sentiments about the labor market. I think using the U2 figures is far too generous.

FWIW, I think the U6 unemployment numbers are a lot closer to representing the true state of the labor market and the sentiments about the labor market. I think using the U2 figures is far too generous.

U3, not U2.

U6 is a useful tool, no doubt, but it's not as if the BLS pulled the criteria for U3 out of its ass (pace robrob). First off, U3 as a measure is used internationally, so it's a reasonably sound way of comparing labor market health across countries. Second, U3 is based on objective criteria ("are you working now," and "have you looked for work in the last month") while U6 adds in subjective criteria ("do you wish you could be working more" and what amounts to "would you work if a job were available, even though you aren't looking for a job right now"),

I was explaining to a certain dunderhead on G+ that the unemployment figure had nothing to do with unemployment insurance claims. A lot of people don't know it, and they think the government actually counts every single person who loses their job. I went on to describe that it's the product of a 60,000 household survey, and it was probably the worse possible thing I could say when arguing with a complete moron.

They immediately seized on the 60,000 number and said "it wasn't big enough", and it couldn't possibly be right because it didn't count them.

After a few back and forths, I just realized that the state of general idiocy in this country has reached such epidemic proportions that you simply cannot argue or debate the facts in a logical way anymore. It's a truly horrifying realization. When complete dumbshits take control of the national discourse, how does reason, logic and factual honesty prevail?

This is not true. The ratio of retardation was always this big. It's just that political leaders have cycled to being complete opportunists at this time instead of statesmen. The biggest difference now though, is that they have a whole media machine to use for their bile, rather than just radio. Anyone can validate their tribal BS, and the conservative spin machine happens to be the most disciplined institution for propaganda ever created.

“Do not argue with an idiot,” Mark Twain once said. “He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.” Better to save the oxygen for those capableof rational discourse (even if this makes attending NASCAR races less fun). If you must argue with an idiot, different rules apply. Take humorist Dave Barry’s advice: (1) drink liquor; (2) make things up; (3) use meaningless but weighty-sounding words and phrases (“vis-à-vis,” “per se,” “ipso facto,” “ergo”); (4) use snappy and irrelevant comebacks (“You’re begging the question,” “You’re being defensive,” “You’re so linear”); and (5) go ahead and compare your opponent to Hitler.

But in his closing statement in Denver, Obama said that it had been 'a terrific debate and I very much appreciate it' - an upbeat comment that reflected his view that he had at the very least held his own against Romney.

This kind of matches what I thought while watching it. Obama was detached from the debate and seemed to simply be saying what he planned to say versus engaging in a debate with the opponent on the stage. Obama acted like he had no respect for Romney and was almost humoring by engaging in a debate at all. Maybe he reads 538 too much? I certainly hope he learned a valuable lesson, takes whatever disdain he has for Romney and uses that as incentive to go for the kill at the next debate. Of course, the concern now is how that approach will play in the narrative that is building around his re-election campaign...can't be helped, though...

But in his closing statement in Denver, Obama said that it had been 'a terrific debate and I very much appreciate it' - an upbeat comment that reflected his view that he had at the very least held his own against Romney.

This kind of matches what I thought while watching it. Obama was detached from the debate and seemed to simply be saying what he planned to say versus engaging in a debate with the opponent on the stage. Obama acted like he had no respect for Romney and was almost humoring by engaging in a debate at all. Maybe he reads 538 too much? I certainly hope he learned a valuable lesson, takes whatever disdain he has for Romney and uses that as incentive to go for the kill at the next debate. Of course, the concern now is how that approach will play in the narrative that is building around his re-election campaign...can't be helped, though...

The format of the next debate is different. Preparing for the previous debate instead of the next one is a flawed plan.

The next presidential debate is citizen asked questions. That will make it harder to direct a response to the opponent rather than the person asking the question. Look at the amount of time in the first debate Romney is talking to Obama versus Romney talking to Lehrer. The questions almost certainly won't be as open ended either; the open ended questions also helped to make the attack style effective.

The format of the next debate is different. Preparing for the previous debate instead of the next one is a flawed plan.

The next presidential debate is citizen asked questions. That will make it harder to direct a response to the opponent rather than the person asking the question. Look at the amount of time in the first debate Romney is talking to Obama versus Romney talking to Lehrer. The questions almost certainly won't be as open ended either; the open ended questions also helped to make the attack style effective.

I didn't say he should prepare for last debate but he definitely needs to prepare for the next debate. Even in a townhall with citizen questions he can't ignore Romney and he can't leave the stage thinking he "won" if it is actually the worse "loss" ever...Obama doesn't seem to "pivot" as well as Romney, which is a problem. Obama likes to say "let me address something from earlier"...where as Romney would take two sentences to "answer" the question (however superficially) and smoothly go to the topic he wants to address. You can't TELL people that you are pivoting away from the actual question...

I forgot to get to it prior to the VP debate, but I went ahead and retitled this thread as a sort of catch-all for the debates. Seems as though the discussion from debate #1 trailed off anyways, as I expected it would.

The VP debate can go ahead and continue on in it's own thread, we'll just pick up here with the last two Presidential debates.

The second presidential debate will take the form of a town meeting, in which citizens will ask questions of the candidates on foreign and domestic issues. Candidates each will have two minutes to respond, and an additional minute for the moderator to facilitate a discussion. The town meeting participants will be undecided voters selected by the Gallup Organization.

Obama acted like he had no respect for Romney and was almost humoring by engaging in a debate at all.

acting like he had no respect for Romney and acting like he was humoring him by engaging in a debate at all would have at least constituted a plan. That's kind of what Biden did to be honest, acting like he was sharing the state with someone not playing at his level. I don't know how well it would have played to viewers, but it would have at least been a theme.

Instead we got a formless, shapeless, low energy mess that two weeks later I still can't accurately describe. Obama essentially gave the performance we all expected from Romney.

I didn't say he should prepare for last debate but he definitely needs to prepare for the next debate. Even in a townhall with citizen questions he can't ignore Romney and he can't leave the stage thinking he "won" if it is actually the worse "loss" ever...Obama doesn't seem to "pivot" as well as Romney, which is a problem. Obama likes to say "let me address something from earlier"...where as Romney would take two sentences to "answer" the question (however superficially) and smoothly go to the topic he wants to address. You can't TELL people that you are pivoting away from the actual question...

To be fair Romney has been running to be POTUS for over six years, he is a bullshitter's bullshitter when it comes to flinging out canned responses that would otherwise be nonsensical if not for the reality that he is really gaming for maximum sound-byte coverage. Contrast to Obama, who has been running the sole world's superpower for the past four years. Perspective is needed. Obama definitely needs to come off sounding less snarky and elitist though. He needs some of that Clinton empathy magic.

But in his closing statement in Denver, Obama said that it had been 'a terrific debate and I very much appreciate it' - an upbeat comment that reflected his view that he had at the very least held his own against Romney.

This kind of matches what I thought while watching it. Obama was detached from the debate and seemed to simply be saying what he planned to say versus engaging in a debate with the opponent on the stage. Obama acted like he had no respect for Romney and was almost humoring by engaging in a debate at all. Maybe he reads 538 too much? I certainly hope he learned a valuable lesson, takes whatever disdain he has for Romney and uses that as incentive to go for the kill at the next debate. Of course, the concern now is how that approach will play in the narrative that is building around his re-election campaign...can't be helped, though...

If Obama had expressed the view that he "won" the debate anywhere near me, I would have to ask him "Are you fucking stupid?".

The headline is based on the fact that Obama didn't like, hang his head and cry at the end of the debate.

And I really feel like we're going off the deep end about this. The news media was internally freaking out over Obama's comfortable, boring lead, and practically shit their pants with joy at the opportunity to report that Romney was landing some kind of murderous beatdown at the debate.

That's fine. They get paid to spice things up (hence the tabloid headline above.) But it was not this earth shattering event. The only line people even remember is the one about big bird.

I think the swing in the polls has a lot to do with Romney support being held down by the gaffs of Romney for so long. He embarrassed himself at the Olymics. He embarassed himself during the Libya thing. He embarrassed himself with the 47% line. He was really making it hard for a Romney supporter to be open about supporting him for a long damn time. The debates gave them a week where republicans could finally release their pent up enthusiasm and say "He went a whole 90 minutes without making an ass of himself. YESSSSSSSS!" That's certainly going to decrease Obama's incredible lead, but it's not going to win Romney the election.